ASHOK SHARMA Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has preferred this writ petition seeking quashing of the order dtd. 6/9/2000 passed by the Superintendent of Police, Jamalpur exercising power under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution of India dispensing with the inquiry and dismissing the petitioner from service. Further, he prays for quashing of order dtd. 14/6/2001, whereby his appeal was rejected and also challenged the order dtd. 11/7/2012 whereby the memorial filed by the petitioner has been rejected by the Director General of Police. He further prays to direct the Respondents to reinstate the petitioner with all consequential monetary benefits.

(2.) Brief facts which required to be noticed are that the petitioner was a constable working in the Railway Police and was a member of the escort party under Jamalpur-Howrah Super Express. It is alleged that the petitioner along with other constables was engaged in extortion from passengers and some altercation took place, whereafter he shot two persons and killed them. The F.I.R. was registered in this regard against the constables including the petitioner and a charge-sheet was issued to the petitioner on 25/8/2000. It was also alleged that a false F.I.R. had been registered by the petitioner in order to save himself against the passengers alleging that they had tried to take away his right.

(3.) In the Departmental inquiry, the petitioner did not appear, nor he filed his reply. An F.I.R. was also registered against the petitioner of having absconded while in custody. The inquiry officer having noticed the facts concluded that the action of the petitioner had been found to be prima-facie proved and the petitioner was absconding. The image of the police had also been seriously hampered in public on account of reports in the newspapers about no action taken with regard to the police officials. Thereafter, the disciplinary authority exercising powers under Article 311(2)(b) of the Constitution found that there was no other alternative available with him but to dispense with the inquiry and take a decision. He thereafter has given reasons in the order of dispensing with the departmental inquiry which includes mentioning of the fact that the petitioner was absconding. A Criminal Case under Sec. 302 was registered against him and proceedings had been initiated as an absconder against him. It was also observed that it is not possible for collecting evidence as the witnesses at Railway Station and the train were belonging to different places and was difficult to collect them for conducting a regular departmental inquiry. Giving the aforesaid reasons, the registry authority proceeded to dismiss the petitioner from service vide order dtd. 6/9/2000.